Public Safety Committee on Nov. 17th, 2011

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You still have a minute and a half, so go ahead.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Are you hearing me all right through the translation?

[Hélène Larente]

Yes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

All right. Thank you.

I wanted to ask you if you could describe how Quebeckers who don't necessarily live in Montreal, but in other regions of Quebec, who use guns for legitimate purposes...yet we're being told that all Quebeckers want to keep the long-gun registry. How do you think Quebeckers outside of Montreal feel when their views are not being represented on this issue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Larente.

[Hélène Larente]

Indeed, people in the regions do not want the gun registry to be maintained. These are hunters, in the regions especially. There are even hunters in the urban areas. They consider that the weapons they use are hunting weapons. Sometimes they are used once or twice a year. We are not criminals. Hunters in general are not in favour of registering firearms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the opposition.

Ms. Boivin, you have seven minutes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

I thank the witnesses for having come here today.

I'm going to try to be very brief because this whole process here, in Parliament... I would never have thought that things moved along so quickly, but it seems that things are done at the speed of high-speed trains, trains we still don't have in Canada.

It is nonsensical. I sit on two committees, this one which is considering the elimination of the gun registry and its data, and on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—I have just come from there—where we are examining Bill C-10, and discussing safety on the streets. Chief Torigian, I found what you had to say very compelling, as it was similar to what I have to say in both of these committees. I think that our world is upside down here. I hear witnesses here who are in favour of the government's vision, and yet when I go to meetings on Bill C-10, they are against the government's vision, and vice versa. They are against it here, and yet they are in favour of it there.

I find this problematical. You say that we should not only accept what is said when it suits us, but that we must also accept statements in light of their credibility.

I noted that my colleague questioned your credibility by saying that you were not pointing to the truth. This is almost telling someone quite openly that they are lying. I find that rather remarkable. Is the same association lying here, or there? I find this approach somewhat dangerous.

We are in a hurry because we don't know if they will pull the same stunt on us in this case as they are pulling with Bill C-10. This means that 208 clauses will have to be studied before midnight, since that is the motion the government has introduced. And yet, I remember very well that the current prime minister used to object vehemently when the former Liberal majority government did this sort of thing.

This demonstrates what kind of "democratic" system we have here. I'm putting the word in quotes because I have some serious doubts. I have with me a young woman from McGill University who—poor girl—did not know that the day she chose to come and see us and shadow us, we members of Parliament, was going to be a day that would provide her with such a lesson in democracy. I regret to have to say to her that this is a pretty peculiar system.

My questions are addressed to the minister because we know that this is exceptional. We know that people from one jurisdiction do not like to come and tell people from another that they don't agree with what they are doing or suggesting, and to try to convince them to see things their way.

Have you had any discussions with your federal counterpart on the specific question of Quebec's perspective on the unanimous motion with regard to the elimination of the gun registry, and the deletion of all the data contained in that registry?

[Robert Dutil]

In fact, we had a brief telephone conversation, before learning that the act provides for the destruction of the registry. I think that that is causing more debate than anything else.

I would like to remind you that Mr. Paradis replied to a question put by Mr. Blaney on this topic in the House.

Mr. Christian Paradis said the following: Mr. Speaker, it is clear; we have always wanted to abolish the long gun registry, which makes criminals out of honest hunters and farmers who do not register their firearms. By decriminalizing it, it is clear that the Canadian Parliament no longer has jurisdiction. That said, if the provinces want to have a long gun registry, they have that option. The registration of goods and property is a provincial jurisdiction.

That is where we have more to say. We can see that the government is determined to abolish the Canadian gun registry and we deplore that fact. We are in a democracy, but this is a majority government and it seems to want to impose its agenda. So what can we do?

We understood at that point that we could have a decriminalized registry, as it would be a provincial registry. In other words, this would no longer give rise to criminal offences, but rather to penal offences, and this is something we'd like to see.

Last year, 9,000 firearms were taken from people who could no longer own them for valid reasons, such as a psychiatric diagnosis or something like that. The same thing can happen with motor vehicles. It is unfortunate, but sometimes people have to give up their driver's licence because of illness. For instance, people who are subject to epileptic seizures cannot drive. People who are too elderly cannot drive either, and their licences are withdrawn.

I am sure that there are people right here around this table who find it very unfortunate that their parents had to lose their driver's licences and they consider this to be dramatic. The objective is to ensure the safety of citizens, as well as that of the person who can no longer drive and does not know it.

So I think that the analogy is a sound one for firearms as well.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Unless I am mistaken, the only contact you had with your counterpart took place before this bill which mentions the elimination of the data was tabled.

They like to say on the federal side that all of Quebec is "soft on crime". They also say that Quebec has a strange way of doing things.

What would you reply to that type of comment?

[Robert Dutil]

I think that there is room for different ways of doing things in Canada; we can't all think the same way. We share a large array of common values across Canada. We may have different ways of doing things. As for the gun registry, there seems to be a considerable difference in attitudes and perceptions.

The lady was saying earlier that people are against the gun registry in the regions. I am from the Beauce, which is a region. I can tell you that there is some reluctance. A lot of people do not like criminalization and that is one of the factors. I'm not saying that there are no irritants. I agree with Chief Torigian when he says that we have to sit down and discuss things.

How can we eliminate the irritants without throwing out the baby with the bath water? We want to keep the baby. We think there are advantages to keeping it. We acknowledge that there are things that irritate hunters and sport shooters. We admit that. Let's respect that and find imaginative solutions. Let's try to eliminate as many irritants as possible. However let's keep the main item so as to reduce—and we have seen this to be the case—the number of suicides, domestic violence incidents, and other such things.

This has been done with motor vehicles. It has been done successfully with motor vehicles. If you ask me who this has saved, I could not answer, but I know that in less than 30 years we have gone from 2,200 deaths a year to 500.

I think that we have seen similar results in the case of firearms.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Minister, I do not mean to be pessimistic, but the experience I am gaining so quickly here by working at a breakneck pace makes me doubt that either you or Quebec are being heeded. Many share your position, which is not only Quebec's. Many Canadians feel the same way.

Are you considering taking any steps? We will do our duty as the official opposition. During the clause-by-clause study, we will of course try to add to the bill the positions Quebeckers are voicing clearly. We want the provinces that wish to keep the data to be able to do so. I can assure you that the opposition will work on that.

Will Quebec take any steps? Are we likely to have a long debate ahead of us at the federal level?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, please. We're already over—

[Robert Dutil]

To use an expression that is popular in Quebec right now: we will see.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Dutil]

I must say that we believe in cooperative federalism. We want to have a dialogue, and it's not too late for that. Both sides are unhappy. It definitely goes both ways. We must find a way to get along.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dutil.

Mr. Breitkreuz, welcome to our committee again, and thank you for all your work on this issue.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you very much.

Yes, I've followed this for quite some time, and I just want to comment on the previous exchange before I pose my question.

The many people who are watching this debate may find it confusing, because I think it has intentionally been made confusing by the people opposing Bill C-19. They confuse licensing and registration. Many of the benefits they attribute to the registry are actually from licensing, such as making sure that certain people who may have psychological problems don't have firearms. That's the result of the licensing system. I just want to clarify that, because many people watching this may not understand that.

I want to pose my questions to Ms. Larente and Ms. Cabrera.

Could you elaborate on your comments that this is a women's issue? The argument has often been made that this legislation, the registry, is needed to protect women. I hear that all the time. Could you please, maybe just briefly, comment on that?

[Hélène Larente]

No, the registry does not protect women any more than it does society as a whole. The fact that a firearm is registered does not mean that it will not be used, either against women or anyone else. I feel that there is no direct correlation there. I want to add that I am in charge of an orientation program. Women who participate in that orientation learn how to handle guns and realize that the gun itself is not dangerous. The person using it must be educated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Madam Cabrera.

[Diana Cabrera]

I agree. I take care of my own firearms, my own training, my own flights, everything that has to do with me; it has nothing to do with being a woman or a man. It's just something that is personal.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Do you think this legislation, which was enacted in 1995, has had a negative effect on people getting into some very healthy traditional heritage activities, such as sport shooting and hunting?

[Diana Cabrera]

I believe so. With all this paperwork, there are too many headaches. It just turns you off. If you're a junior shooter, especially with the coaches.... As I stated, if you're a junior, you have to be with an adult who has that paperwork in order to to possess your firearm. You're always going to need that person available, so you get turned off.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Do you think this has had a negative effect on people getting into the hunting and shooting sports in Quebec?